Rethinking poverty: Alleviation or elimination?

The bad news in poverty continues to stalk every country at the turn of the new millennium; the question is one of degrees. The good news is, fight against it has been winning grounds in most of the countries if alleviation is the goal. Bangladesh is one of those countries where poverty has been put on the back foot though not routed decisively. The poor in Bangladesh are not yet out of the woods but many of them have crossed above the threshold of poverty. Particularly remarkable is the progress achieved in improving the living conditions for those who were once victims of extreme poverty. It may however, be questioned whether the retreat of poverty is for good or a passing phenomenon. It all depends on how the water in the glass is measured, half empty or half full. There is both quantitative and temporal aspects involved in the appraisal of the strategy adopted for addressing poverty.
During the rule under Pakistan poverty did not attract much attention of the policy makers and planners. The development strategy adopted by the political and bureaucratic elite was based on 'trickle down theory'. It was almost axiomatically thought that economic growth would take care of the poor, just as ebb tide lifts all boats. This complacency was wedded to the free market ideology embraced by the power that was at the behest of foreign experts. It was not surprising that poverty not only stubbornly persisted, particularly in former East Pakistan, but continued to worsen.
It was only after Bangladesh became independent that poverty became a central issue in development planning and policy making. Alongside promoting growth, equity in distribution of national income received due attention. But initially very few programs were undertaken to address poverty. As the awareness about it grew programs were formulated directly targeting the poor. Government intervention in this regard was supplemented by programs of non-governmental organizations (NGOs), a few of which went on becoming world famous for their achievements. For a while the donors came to believe that poverty oriented programs should be left to the NGOs because of their comparative advantage in social engineering. This ignored the fact that while NGOs were efficient they were not permanent bodies and could fold down their activities any time without any obligation to the poor. But for the government addressing poverty was a continuing commitment and official duty as long as the malaise persisted in bedevilling the life of the poor. Therefore, what was needed was a government-NGO collaboration in addressing poverty. The disappearance of a few NGOs who were major players in poverty oriented programs led to a resetting of the roles of government and the NGOs. At present under both multi-lateral and bilateral assistance the two are implementing poverty oriented programs variously described as 'alleviation' and 'eradication'. The basic difference between the two adjectives is not always understood or appreciated properly. However looked at, the progress achieved in poverty-focused programs goes to the credit of both the government and the NGOs. If there is greater co-ordination between the two actors the achievement would be much more and made more quickly. Unfortunately the relation is not one of close collaboration, but working in parallel, sometime overlapping each other in the spatial sense. To make matters worse, some of the NGOs with successful records in poverty-focused programs have diversified their activities in various fields, diluting the attention to the poor. For reasons best known to them, they are not availing fully of their advantage in addressing poverty and have drifted to sundry business activities.
The success achieved by Bangladesh in addressing poverty appears remarkable when measured by conventional standards (calorie intake, basic needs income) and with the goal of alleviation. That the country has been singled out as a role model for addressing poverty makes palpable the potential loss for greater achievement due to the lack of a coordinated and concerted strategy between GO-NGO and the veering off the major NGOs into other directions. It is not yet too late for both government and NGOs to pull their resources together and address poverty in a concerted manner. As regards NGOs which have drifted away from poverty programs, the donors providing funds may prevail over them in re-setting their programs.
It will be relevant to review the progress made by Bangladesh in addressing poverty using official figures as published in newspapers. According to the General Economic Division (GED) of the Planning Commission, a total of 37.6 million people are still poor including 19.4 million who are extremely poor. This is in spite of the fact that poverty rate has been reduced by 1.3 per cent in one year as the poverty rate was 24.8 per cent in 2015, as revealed by GED. This means that with the present goal in the strategy much more remains to be done.
According to the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS) anyone who earns less than Taka 130 daily is considered to be extreme poor. The World Bank in its latest measurement of poverty considers anyone earning less than $ 1.90 (Tk 150) per day as extremely poor. The difference between the two estimates is wide and stark, creating confusion. Applying the World Bank criteria, the number and percentage of extreme poor Bangladesh will be higher than estimated by BBS. According to BBS, those who earn less than Tk 160 per day are moderately poor. In 2009, Bangladesh had 50 million moderately poor including 28 million extremely poor.
According to the October issue of the 'Bangladesh Development Update' issued by the World Bank, Bangladesh can eliminate extreme poverty by 2030 if it takes firm steps to make growth more inclusive to benefit all Bangladeshis. Incidentally, this is the target fixed for poverty reduction under the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG). Returning to the criteria of World Bank ($ 1.90) based on purchasing power parity in 2011, about 28 million (18.5 per cent of population) Bangladeshis lived in extreme poverty in 2010. The World Bank Update has pointed out that more than 16 million people in Bangladesh graduated from extreme poverty to moderate poverty (the criteria not available) between 2000 and 2010. Achieving the goal of reducing extreme poverty to less than 3 per cent of Bangladeshis by 2030 will require economic growth to become more inclusive with the poorest 40 per cent of society receiving greater benefits from development, the World Bank Update has observed. But the World Bank has not elaborated on what should be the required size of growth nor how growth can be more inclusive or in what manner can the poor receive greater benefits from development. From the Update it merely appears that to move to the next level and to become a middle income country by 2021, as well as to overcome extreme poverty by 2030, the country needs to sustain its economic and remittance growth, create more and better jobs, focus on energy and transportation infrastructure, and make progress on improving the quality of health care and education. Apart from creating more and better jobs, the others mentioned in the Update are broad goals, which do not ensure their percolation below for the benefit of the poor. From the available information published in local newspapers no specific and clear idea can be had about the evaluation by the World Bank of Bangladesh's record in addressing poverty nor about the strategy prescribed by it.  
According to GED if poverty reduction continues at the present rate Bangladesh can eliminate extreme poverty by 2028, that is 2 years ahead of the SDG target. It pointed out that poverty was reducing at 2 per cent per year (earlier it was mentioned that poverty reduced 1.3 per cent in 2014) and if this rate can be maintained the goal will be achieved. Many of the extremely poor have reportedly been pulled over the poverty line in the last 22 years, according to GED. As many as 45 per cent of the extremely poor were pulled out of poverty during the last five years, it is reported.
According to GED social safety net programs (SSNPs) in Bangladesh addressed the basic needs of the people, including food, shelter, education and health. The programs under SSNPs are: Food for Works Program, Vulnerable Group Feeding Program, Old age Allowance, Allowances for the mentally challenged, Allowances for Widows adn Distressed Women, grants for orphanage, selling of rice at Tk 10 per kg for 5 months covering 4.0 million people etc. The list is not complete and there are other programs. Though these programs help the poor when they have access, these are of relief nature helping vulnerable groups and do not address poverty in general. For the latter, there are other programs like micro-credit based income generating activities untaken both by the governments and the NGOs and their number is large. In fact these poverty focused programs constitute the main plank of the poverty oriented programs based on which the success in this area is being measured and forecast made. However successful these latter type activities may have been in benefiting the poor concerned, there is no guarantee that poverty will not raise its ugly head when the next generation comes of age. The vulnerable groups are likely to remain a permanent feature of society rather than disappearing for good. Those of the poor who have graduated from poverty may not leave behind enough either in assets or money to help the next generation to remain above the poverty line. The stark reality is that the poor will continue as a class if they cannot participate in the economy as investors, producers or earners of wages way above subsistence level enabling them to give education to their children to become skilled and qualified enough to earn a decent income.
This article is not intended to underestimate the achievements made by Bangladesh in addressing poverty even though the available figures appear confusing. What is being stressed here is that the root cause of poverty has to be recognized to make reduction even, eradication possible. Poverty that prevails in Bangladesh is the inevitable outcome of the market economy. The market rewards with profit and higher incomes those who have command over land, capital or posses good academic qualifications and skills.
SSNPs are palliatives and do not take care of the long term needs of the poor. Nor it is possible to help the vulnerable groups covered under the programs with income generating activities because of their age and physical disability. Under the circumstances the SSNPs are the best help that they can get. The programs however, do not enable their children to benefit on a long term basis, Since the market does not cater to their needs for livelihood the government is doing the right thing. The only thing that has to be ensured is that the deserving people receive the assistance.
The income generating activities using micro-credits cover the bulk of the poor. However successful these programs may have been in alleviating poverty for the beneficiaries the benefit cannot be sustained in most cases beyond the present generation if they do not inherit assets or have been given quality education to earn decent income. For the next generation poverty may make a re-appearance if they are left to the lurch. The implication is that for even poverty alleviation the same type of income generating activities has to be continued.
Poverty in a market economy being the outcome of the operation of the market, the poor has to be integrated into it as producers of goods or income (wages) earners at a level that pull them away from the periphery of the market (low price for goods, low wages for unskilled and semi-skilled workers) nearer to the center where they have better prospects to earn decent income assuring them and their children of a better life. They may not be transformed into the major league of actors (rich) in the market but neither will they struggle at the fringe with the ever present threat of slipping below the poverty line. Poverty being the creation of market economy there must be solutions that make the poor effective (sustained) participants in the market. The programs for addressing poverty have to be market oriented if the goal is not alleviation but eradication. Treatment of the scourge of poverty should address the root cause and not the symptoms. This is the great challenge for the policy makers and donors.
[email protected]